What is scientific writing?
As a student in the sciences, you are likely to spend some time writing lab reports, which
often follow the format of peer-reviewed articles and literature reviews. Regardless of the
genre, though, all scientific writing has the same goal: to present data and/or ideas with a
level of detail that allows a reader to evaluate the validity of the results and conclusions
based only on the facts presented. The reader should be able to easily follow both the
methods used to generate the data (if it's a primary research paper) and the chain of logic
used to draw conclusions from the data. Several key elements allow scientific writers to
achieve these goals:



Precision: ambiguities in writing cause confusion and may prevent a reader from
grasping crucial aspects of the methodology and synthesis
Clarity: concepts and methods in the sciences can often be complex; writing that
is difficult to follow greatly amplifies any confusion on the part of the reader
Objectivity: any claims that you make need to be based on facts, not intuition or
emotion
How can I make my writing more precise?
Theories in the sciences are based upon precise mathematical models, specific empirical
(primary) data sets, or some combination of the two. Therefore, scientists must use
precise, concrete language to evaluate and explain such theories, whether mathematical
or conceptual. Here are a few strategies for avoiding ambiguous, imprecise writing:
Word and phrasing choice:
Often several words may convey similar meaning, but usually only one word is most
appropriate in a given context. Here's an example:
Word choice 1: "population density is positively correlated with SARS transmission rate"
Word choice 2: "population density is positively related to SARS transmission rate"
In some contexts, "correlated" and "related" have similar meanings. But in scientific
writing, "correlated" conveys a precise statistical relationship between two variables. In
scientific writing, it is typically not enough to simply point out that two variables are
related: the reader will expect you to explain the precise nature of the relationship (note:
when using "correlation," you must explain somewhere in the paper how the correlation
was estimated). If you mean "correlated," then use the word "correlated"; avoid
substituting a less precise term when a more precise term is available.
This same idea also applies to choice of phrasing. For example, the phrase "writing of an
investigative nature" could refer to writing in the sciences, but might also refer to a police
report. When presented with a choice, a more specific and less ambiguous phraseology is
always preferable. This applies even when you must be repetitive to maintain precision:
repetition is preferable to ambiguity. Although repetition of words or phrases often
happens out of necessity, it can actually be beneficial by placing special emphasis on key
concepts.
Figurative language
Figurative language can make for interesting and engaging casual reading but is by
definition imprecise. Writing "experimental subjects were assaulted with a wall of sound"
does not convey the precise meaning of "experimental subjects were presented with 20
second pulses of conspecific mating calls." It's difficult for a reader to objectively
evaluate your research if details are left to the imagination, so exclude similes and
metaphors from your scientific writing.
Level of detail
Include as much detail as is necessary, but exclude extraneous information. The reader
should be able to easily follow your methodology, results, and logic without being
distracted by irrelevant facts and descriptions. Ask yourself the following questions when
you evaluate the level of detail in a paper:
1. Is the rationale for performing the experiment clear (i.e., have you shown that the
question you are addressing is important and interesting)?
2. Are the materials and procedures used to generate the results described at a level
of detail that would allow the experiment to be repeated?
3. Is the rationale behind the choice of experimental methods clear? Will the reader
understand why those particular methods are appropriate for answering the
question your research is addressing?
4. Will the reader be able to follow the chain of logic used to draw conclusions from
the data?
Any information that enhances the reader's understanding of the rationale, methodology,
and logic should be included, but information in excess of this (or information that is
redundant) will only confuse and distract the reader.
Quantify
Whenever possible, use quantitative rather than qualitative descriptions. A phrase that
uses definite quantities such as "development rate in the 30 C temperature treatment was
ten percent faster than development rate in the 20 C temperature treatment" is much more
precise than the more qualitative phrase "development rate was fastest in the higher
temperature treatment."
How can I make my writing clearer?
When you're writing about complex ideas and concepts, it's easy to get sucked into
complex writing. Distilling complicated ideas into simple explanations is challenging, but
you'll need to acquire this valuable skill to be an effective communicator in the sciences.
Complexities in language use and sentence structure are perhaps the most common issues
specific to writing in the sciences.
Language use
When given a choice between a familiar and a technical or obscure term, the more
familiar term is preferable if it doesn't reduce precision. Here are a just a few examples of
complex words and their simple alternatives:
Complex
Simple
efficacious
utilize
elucidate
proximal
effective
use
explain
close
In these examples, the term on the right conveys the same meaning as the word on the left
but is more familiar and straightforward, and is often shorter as well.
There are some situations where the use of a technical or obscure term is justified. For
example, in a paper comparing two different viral strains, the author might repeatedly use
the word "enveloped" rather than the phrase "surrounded by a membrane." The key word
here is "repeatedly": only choose the less familiar term if you'll be using it more than
once. If you choose to go with the technical term, however, make sure you clearly define
it, as early in the paper as possible. You can use this same strategy to determine whether
or not to use abbreviations, but again you must be careful to define the abbreviation early
on.
Sentence structure
Science writing must be precise, and precision often requires a fine level of detail.
Careful description of objects, forces, organisms, methodology, etc., can easily lead to
complex sentences that express too many ideas without a break point. Here's an example:
The osmoregulatory organ, which is located at the base of the third dorsal spine on the
outer margin of the terminal papillae and functions by expelling excess sodium ions,
activates only under hypertonic conditions.
Several things make this sentence complex. First, the action of the sentence (activates) is
far removed from the subject (the osmoregulatory organ) so that the reader has to wait a
long time to get the main idea of the sentence. Second, the verbs "functions," "activates,"
and "expelling" are somewhat redundant. Consider this revision:
Located on the outer margin of the terminal papillae at the base of the third dorsal spine,
the osmoregulatory organ expels excess sodium ions under hypertonic conditions.
This sentence is slightly shorter, conveys the same information, and is much easier to
follow. The subject and the action are now close together, and the redundant verbs have
been eliminated. You may have noticed that even the simpler version of this sentence
contains two prepositional phrases strung together ("on the outer margin of Â…" and "at
the base of Â…"). Prepositional phrases themselves are not a problem; in fact, they are
usually required to achieve an adequate level of detail in science writing. However, long
strings of prepositional phrases can cause sentences to wander. Here's an example of
what not to do from Alley (1996):
"Â…to confirm the nature of electrical breakdown of nitrogen in uniform fields at
relatively high pressures and interelectrode gaps that approach those obtained in
engineering practice, prior to the determination of the processes that set the criterion for
breakdown in the above-mentioned gases and mixtures in uniform and non-uniform fields
of engineering significance."
The use of eleven (yes, eleven!) prepositional phrases in this sentence is excessive, and
renders the sentence nearly unintelligible. Judging when a string of prepositional phrases
is too long is somewhat subjective, but as a general rule of thumb, a single prepositional
phrase is always preferable, and anything more than two strung together can be
problematic.
Verbosity
Nearly every form of scientific communication is space-limited. Grant proposals, journal
articles, and abstracts all have word or page limits, so there's a premium on concise
writing. Furthermore, adding unnecessary words or phrases distracts rather than engages
the reader. Avoid generic phrases that contribute no novel information. Common phrases
such as "the fact that," "it should be noted that," and "it is interesting that" are
cumbersome and unnecessary. Your reader will decide whether or not your paper is
interesting based on the content. In any case, if information is not interesting or
noteworthy it should probably be excluded.
How can I make my writing more objective?
The objective tone used in conventional scientific writing reflects the philosophy of the
scientific method: if results are not repeatable, then they are not valid. In other words,
your results will only be considered valid if any researcher performing the same
experimental tests and analyses that you describe would be able to produce the same
results. Thus, scientific writers try to adopt a tone that removes the focus from the
researcher and puts it only on the research itself. Here are several stylistic conventions
that enhance objectivity:
Passive voice
You may have been told at some point in your academic career that the use of the passive
voice is almost always bad, except in the sciences. The passive voice is a sentence
structure where the subject who performs the action is ambiguous.
The rationale behind using the passive voice in scientific writing is that it enhances
objectivity, taking the actor (i.e., the researcher) out of the action (i.e., the research).
Unfortunately, the passive voice can also lead to awkward and confusing sentence
structures and is generally considered less engaging (i.e., more boring) than the active
voice. This is why most general style guides recommend only sparing use of the passive
voice.
Currently, the active voice is preferred in most scientific fields, even when it necessitates
the use of "I" or "we." It's perfectly reasonable (and more simple) to say "We performed a
two-tailed t-test" rather than to say "a two-tailed t-test was performed," or "in this paper
we present results" rather than "results are presented in this paper." Nearly every current
edition of scientific style guides recommends the active voice, but different instructors
(or journal editors) may have different opinions on this topic. If you are unsure, check
with the instructor or editor who will review your paper to see whether or not to use the
passive voice. If you choose to use the active voice with "I" or "we," there are a few
guidelines to follow:
1. Avoid starting sentences with "I" or "we": this pulls focus away from the
scientific topic at hand.
2. Avoid using "I" or "we" when you're making a conjecture, whether it's
substantiated or not. Everything you say should follow from logic, not from
personal bias or subjectivity. Never use any emotive words in conjunction with
"I" or "we" (e.g., "I believe," "we feel," etc.).
3. Never use "we" in a way that includes the reader (e.g., "here we see trait evolution
in action"); the use of "we" in this context sets a condescending tone.
Acknowledging your limitations
Your conclusions should be directly supported by the data that you present. Avoid
making sweeping conclusions that rest on assumptions that have not been substantiated
by your or others' research. For example, if you discover a correlation between fur
thickness and basal metabolic rate in rats and mice you would not necessarily conclude
that fur thickness and basal metabolic rate are correlated in all mammals. You might
draw this conclusion, however, if you cited evidence that correlations between fur
thickness and basal metabolic rate are also found in twenty other mammalian species.
Assess the generality of the available data before you commit to an overly general
conclusion.
*Adapted from UNC’s “Writing in the Sciences”:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/sciences.html